Triple Down?

We await the fruits of your brilliance. Don't forget to include the initial doubles which become viable due to the possibility of a double/triple down later.
That different rule if you can add bet for 4th card after double down tripling your bet. It interesting also. Do pair of 4s become double instead of split. And should 8 be ever double?
 
I have a hard time following the logic here, but tripling or quadrupling down is a very rare event, so we should not think too much about it. I find miplet’s posts above reasonable.
 
Wait a second. I thought the math was simple and that you would be providing the correct strategy very quickly.
 
I just read this thread and found some people were confusing tripling down and re-doubling. Everything has been posted above, so I don’t think there is any math in this.
 
Yes. In one post, the comment I made was relevant to re-doubling, for which I presented strategies on a separate thread years ago. Apologies for any confusion.
 
I just read this thread and found some people were confusing tripling down and re-doubling. Everything has been posted above, so I don’t think there is any math in this.
Well that's a complete about face from "the math for this is very easy" and "I can provide results in a few minutes" to "I don't think there is any math in this". What specifically were you referring to when you said that it was easy?

For those of you who are not familiar with aceside, this thread is typical of one of the many things he does which has resulted in him being banned from several forums:
  1. He makes a statement indicating that he is knowledgeable in a given area and could easily provide answers.
  2. He then fails to provide those answers.
  3. When challenged, he delays answering and then eventually pronounces that the topic is unimportant.
Let me provide some actual answers. The wizard of odds has a strategy for triple down which you can find at


His strategy appears to be for no triple-after splitting. Someone asked about additional splits if you can triple after splitting and the answer is yes, there are. For a 6 deck S17 game, I get:

Splits for 6D S17 Triple Down After Split.png


Someone also asked about quadruple down. Setting aside the questionable (cheating) strategy suggest for 3rd base, if you could quadruple down in the same game, here is the correct basic strategy:

Quadruple Down 6D S17 QAS.png


Note, where the chart says 'd' for double you should quadruple down.
 

Attachments

  • Splits for 6D S17 Triple Down After Split.png
    Splits for 6D S17 Triple Down After Split.png
    13.5 KB · Views: 95
I just read Wizard “Triple up 21” page and found a problem there. Quote “It is not a typo that the player should triple down on a blackjack, against a dealer six, in the six-deck game.” I believe this statement does not sound correct. Based on my easy math, the player should not triple down this particular situation, because tripling EV is just 1.5 times of the doubling EV.
 
It's a rare occasion where aceside and I agree, but this is one of them. My software also indicates that tripling down on BJ is not correct. In fact, my strategy above for quadrupling on BJ also indicates not to do it.

aceside, please post your EV numbers for tripling BJ vs 6 in a 6 deck S17 game vs standing.
 
I’m glad you finally agree with me. I just looked up these numbers. The Standing EV=1.5, Tripling EV=1.0047645. Gronbog is my one and sole reliable blackjack referee!
 
Last edited:
Well that's a complete about face from "the math for this is very easy" and "I can provide results in a few minutes" to "I don't think there is any math in this". What specifically were you referring to when you said that it was easy?

For those of you who are not familiar with aceside, this thread is typical of one of the many things he does which has resulted in him being banned from several forums:
  1. He makes a statement indicating that he is knowledgeable in a given area and could easily provide answers.
  2. He then fails to provide those answers.
  3. When challenged, he delays answering and then eventually pronounces that the topic is unimportant.
Let me provide some actual answers. The wizard of odds has a strategy for triple down which you can find at


His strategy appears to be for no triple-after splitting. Someone asked about additional splits if you can triple after splitting and the answer is yes, there are. For a 6 deck S17 game, I get:

View attachment 9217

Someone also asked about quadruple down. Setting aside the questionable (cheating) strategy suggest for 3rd base, if you could quadruple down in the same game, here is the correct basic strategy:

View attachment 9216

Note, where the chart says 'd' for double you should quadruple down.
Thanks for spilling chart for triple after split. But I can't reach wizard of odds website can you post what it show?
 
I just tried the Wizard of odds link and it works for me. It shows triple down strategies for various numbers of decks.
 
It's a gambling website, so it is blocked for you. Just use the above Gronbog quadrupling table for tripling, except these four hands: 9 vs 7, A,9 vs 2, A,T vs, 2, and A,T vs 3.
 
It's a gambling website, so it is blocked for you. Just use the above Gronbog quadrupling table for tripling, except these four hands: 9 vs 7, A,9 vs 2, A,T vs, 2, and A,T vs 3.
I am surprised 9 against 2 and 8 against 5 are not triple down hand. And also surprised on splitting 2 3 7 against 8.but not surprised about splitting 6 9 against 7. Also Ace 8 against 2 is triple but Ace 5 against 3 not.
 
It’s just because dealer busts less in 8 vs 5. Splitting always has priority over doubling, so split 4,4 vs 6.
 
I’m glad you finally agree with me. I just looked up these numbers. The Standing EV=1.5, Tripling EV=1.0047645. Gronbog is my one and sole reliable blackjack referee!
Really sorry, but you're both wrong. You didn't read the rules of Triple Up 21. Rule #3 is : Blackjack pays even money.

Good piece of advice: no one is infallible, and we all make mistakes. But, when you decide to say that a legend has made a mistake, be REALLY sure that you're right first. :) I learned this many, many years ago, in my copious correspondence with Peter Griffin. I would read something he wrote and be sure that he had made a mistake. The great majority of the time, I was missing something, as you are here. Of course, I finally nailed one with the floating advantage (see BJA3, pp. 68-71). But that didn't quite make the score even!

Don
 
Back
Top